Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Image

Woman Sues Google Over Street View Shots of Her Underwear 417

Kittenman writes "The Telegraph (and several US locals) are covering a story about a Japanese woman who had her underwear on the line while the Google car went past. She is now suing Google: 'I was overwhelmed with anxiety that I might be the target of a sex crime,' the woman told a district court. 'It caused me to lose my job and I had to change my residence.'"

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Woman Sues Google Over Street View Shots of Her Underwear

Comments Filter:
  • by Drakkenmensch ( 1255800 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @12:51PM (#34629744)
    ... don't leave them in public view to begin with?
  • by Nailer235 ( 1822054 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @12:52PM (#34629762)
    It seems hard to imagine that the woman expected her delicates to stay completely private when she hung them up for the entire world to see.
  • Mental Illness (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MozeeToby ( 1163751 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @12:55PM (#34629820)

    'I was overwhelmed with anxiety that I might be the target of a sex crime,' the woman told a district court. 'It caused me to lose my job and I had to change my residence.'

    Even ignoring the fact that the woman's underwear was apparently visible from the street in the first place and it never bothered her. This reeks of unhealthy paranoia to me, is Google really responsible for one woman's mental issues? Granted, this thinking is exactly what the modern media creates, the idea that the world is filled with kidnappers, rapists, and violence. It's ironic that there are fewer murders than ever in US history, the kidnapping rate is lower than it was in 1940, and the overall violent crime rate sets new record lows every year (maybe not since the recession, but I haven't heard).

  • by enderjsv ( 1128541 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @01:07PM (#34630026)

    How would that even work? No. I think trying to somehow distinguish between regular public and internet public is kind of dumb. Here's a good rule of thumb. Live your public life as though everything you do will end up on the internet.

  • by BeanThere ( 28381 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @01:07PM (#34630038)

    ... that she might miss out on a chance to sue a big company for a whole lot of money she doesn't deserve, by feigning distress. I'm sure nobody involved thinks it's anything other than BS, but they're probably hoping Google will settle.

  • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @01:08PM (#34630068) Homepage Journal

    There's "private". Then there's "public". But then there's "on the Internet", which is a whole different ball of wax.

    No, it isn't. "On the Internet" is where you should assume everything "public" will end up. Or put another way, you should always assune the whole world is watching anything you do in public. This was a good idea before the Internet, and it's a better idea now.

  • by clone52431 ( 1805862 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @01:10PM (#34630094)

    There's "private". Then there's "public". But then there's "on the Internet", which is a whole different ball of wax.

    Not for long. Get used to it... I don’t see the trend changing.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @01:10PM (#34630104)

    Common sense says there's no need for a company to go around the world ignoring local rules, laws or even society conventions, taking pictures to put online, with the pure motive of selling more adverts.

  • by Volante3192 ( 953645 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @01:19PM (#34630264)

    Common sense says taking a picture from a publically accessable location is fair game. After that the rest of your argument falls apart.

  • Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by amicusNYCL ( 1538833 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @01:21PM (#34630316)

    If you have to add a bunch of text to get around the lameness filter, maybe you should reconsider posting your lame post.

  • by gman003 ( 1693318 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @01:32PM (#34630490)
    So far, everyone seems to be concluding that this woman is some sort of nut and/or lawsuit-happy money-grabber. Honestly, I agree with that given the evidence shown so far, but everyone deserves some level of defense.

    This woman is making at least one claim that can be tested - that she lost her job due to this. It would be rather simple to find out if this was the case - ask her ex-boss if he fired her over them, find out if she was shunned by coworkers over the images, etc. Most cases of people suing over trivialities involve less testable claims. As such, either she's not good at trolling the legal system, or she's got more of a case than we've assumed. After all, Japan is a much different culture than America or Europe - something like this could actually be a big deal over there. I honestly don't know. So, I'm going to wait for more info before making any sort of final judgement.
  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @01:36PM (#34630564)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @01:56PM (#34630922)

    Japan is where there are huge problems with men groping teenage girls on the train, to the point where there are "women only" cars now. And you're telling us that nobody in Japan would dare look at this woman's panties drying on a line?

  • by NicknamesAreStupid ( 1040118 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @02:37PM (#34631664)
    With advanced technology from Asia, Choocle (a fictitious Chinese Google) could drive machines around that could see through the walls of our homes. That might be perfectly acceptable in their culture and 'legal' here (as soon as they 'donate' to the right politicians). I'm sure we'd get use to it, too, just like the TSA 'inspections'. We should also get use to eating dogs.
  • by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary&yahoo,com> on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @03:33PM (#34632608) Journal

    It's not a corner case. Many localities have differing regulations concerning photography. You think all laws are sensible? FFS, there are places where there are still laws on the books prohibiting you from putting squirrels in your pants for the purposes of betting. If you think the law is about "common sense" you may be in for a rude shock when you travel.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law [wikipedia.org]

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...